i ask having recently bought many cds , some sound great on my system , and some not so great , is there any figures/data etc on a cd case that may give an indication of the quality of the recording on the disc ?? and therefore how good or not it may sound ? ta..
poor cd quality .. is there any way to check ??
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
Max it's all down to a combination of sound engineer, producer , musicians and then finally the Mastering of the CD which is done usually by an out of house specialist masterer..
I often check out Cd's produced by certain Producers....
i.e. Trevor Horn.....Daniel Lanois who are ace....
any way the only way to check a recordings quality is to listen to it.....
lovin your work Max ......sorry for any spelling .......really hungover....and not really sure if this is what your thread was getting at....
p.s.Try Porcupine Tree's latest album if you want to hear incredible sound quality...
I often check out Cd's produced by certain Producers....
i.e. Trevor Horn.....Daniel Lanois who are ace....
any way the only way to check a recordings quality is to listen to it.....
lovin your work Max ......sorry for any spelling .......really hungover....and not really sure if this is what your thread was getting at....
p.s.Try Porcupine Tree's latest album if you want to hear incredible sound quality...
Mastering a recording can really make or break the record,,,,,band,,,,,,,
It's very much an art ,,,,,,and can go very well or very badly...
Check out American Idiot by Green Day,,,,,,,The record jumpd out of the speakers at you.......a brilliant example of awesome eginnering nd mastering...
Then put on Stuff by the Pixies....great music but some of the recordings.......
It's very much an art ,,,,,,and can go very well or very badly...
Check out American Idiot by Green Day,,,,,,,The record jumpd out of the speakers at you.......a brilliant example of awesome eginnering nd mastering...
Then put on Stuff by the Pixies....great music but some of the recordings.......
Shamelessly ripped!
In the early days of the CD, the Society of Professional Audio
Recording Services (SPARS) [pronounced "sparz" not "sparse"] developed
a three-letter coding system to distinguish between the types of
recording equipment used at different junctures of the making of a CD.
The D indicates digital equipment, and the A indicates analog
equipment.
The first letter indicates the type of equipment used in the initial
recording. The second letter indicates the type of equipment used for
mixing and editing. The third letter is superfluous. It indicates
the type of equipment used for mastering, which in the case of a CD
can only be digital.
Many people use the SPARS code as a barometer of the sound quality of
a CD, and this is a wrong thing to do. The SPARS code doesn't, nor
was it ever meant to, reflect the actual quality of the CD. Between
digital and analog recorders, neither intrinsically sounds better than
the other. A recording made on a good Studer A820 fitted out with
Dolby SR will generally sound better than a recording made on a cheap
Sony TCD-D3 DATman, though the DATman will sound better than many
cheap analog systems.
In the end, both analog and digital systems have the ability to sound
great or to sound awful. It all depends on the type of equipment and
the skill of the engineer operating it. Many modern DDD recordings
are so carelessly made that they don't sound nearly as good as analog
recordings made 20 years ago. Then again, a good DDD can sound
*excellent*, as can a good analog recording. You get the idea.
Of course, neither method of recording says anything about miking.
Even if the engineer uses the best digital equipment, if the
microphones are not placed properly, the recording won't sound very
good, and a good mic technique recorded to a walkman will in all
likelihood be more aesthetically pleasing.
There is also confusion over what rubric should apply to a particular
recording. What about classical recordings made straight to two-track
and thus don't need any mixing? What about digital recordings mixed
through an analog console versus digital recordings mixed through a
digital console? Why should a 40-year-old reissue get the same AAD
rubric as a carefully-made analog recording produced using Dolby SR?
The code did not evolve with the technology, and is hopelessly
outdated.
In the early days of the CD, the Society of Professional Audio
Recording Services (SPARS) [pronounced "sparz" not "sparse"] developed
a three-letter coding system to distinguish between the types of
recording equipment used at different junctures of the making of a CD.
The D indicates digital equipment, and the A indicates analog
equipment.
The first letter indicates the type of equipment used in the initial
recording. The second letter indicates the type of equipment used for
mixing and editing. The third letter is superfluous. It indicates
the type of equipment used for mastering, which in the case of a CD
can only be digital.
Many people use the SPARS code as a barometer of the sound quality of
a CD, and this is a wrong thing to do. The SPARS code doesn't, nor
was it ever meant to, reflect the actual quality of the CD. Between
digital and analog recorders, neither intrinsically sounds better than
the other. A recording made on a good Studer A820 fitted out with
Dolby SR will generally sound better than a recording made on a cheap
Sony TCD-D3 DATman, though the DATman will sound better than many
cheap analog systems.
In the end, both analog and digital systems have the ability to sound
great or to sound awful. It all depends on the type of equipment and
the skill of the engineer operating it. Many modern DDD recordings
are so carelessly made that they don't sound nearly as good as analog
recordings made 20 years ago. Then again, a good DDD can sound
*excellent*, as can a good analog recording. You get the idea.
Of course, neither method of recording says anything about miking.
Even if the engineer uses the best digital equipment, if the
microphones are not placed properly, the recording won't sound very
good, and a good mic technique recorded to a walkman will in all
likelihood be more aesthetically pleasing.
There is also confusion over what rubric should apply to a particular
recording. What about classical recordings made straight to two-track
and thus don't need any mixing? What about digital recordings mixed
through an analog console versus digital recordings mixed through a
digital console? Why should a 40-year-old reissue get the same AAD
rubric as a carefully-made analog recording produced using Dolby SR?
The code did not evolve with the technology, and is hopelessly
outdated.
Just picked up some of the RCA Living Stereo releases on SACD, currently going cheap on Amazon. Now there are some examples of great recordings. some of these from the 50s and early 60s. Terrific stuff (classical in the main).
6th.replicant
Well-known member
- Oct 26, 2007
- 294
- 0
- 18,890
the record spot:Just picked up some of the RCA Living Stereo releases on SACD, currently going cheap on Amazon. Now there are some examples of great recordings. some of these from the 50s and early 60s. Terrific stuff (classical in the main).
+1
Recently snapped up the RCA Living Stereo SACD of Fritz Reiner / Chicago Sympony Orchestra's Scheherazade. IMHO, beautiful playing and a stunning recording - the hairs they are a standing.
Also on Amazon, many of the Linn SACDs are currently at a fair price, the following arrived this morning: Mackerras / Scottish Chamber Orchestra's Mozart symphonies Nos 29, 31, 32, 35 & 36 ( 2 disc £9.93); Retrospect Trio's Purcell - Ten Sonatas In Four Parts (£11.99).
And if you're partial to Baroque played on 'original' instruments, many of the Jordi Savall SACDs are a relative bargain, too (eg Marais - Suitte d'un Gout Etranger, 2 disc £13.99). The SQ is quite extraordinary, jaw-dropping stuff - I assume Savall's recordings are reference material?
A bit late to the SACD party - recently bought a SACD-compatible CDP - and feeling a sense of 'where have you been all my life' re SACDs. Mind you, I'm sure that there are also some mediocre recordings on SACD...
+1
Recently snapped up the RCA Living Stereo SACD of Fritz Reiner / Chicago Sympony Orchestra's Scheherazade. IMHO, beautiful playing and a stunning recording - the hairs they are a standing.
Also on Amazon, many of the Linn SACDs are currently at a fair price, the following arrived this morning: Mackerras / Scottish Chamber Orchestra's Mozart symphonies Nos 29, 31, 32, 35 & 36 ( 2 disc £9.93); Retrospect Trio's Purcell - Ten Sonatas In Four Parts (£11.99).
And if you're partial to Baroque played on 'original' instruments, many of the Jordi Savall SACDs are a relative bargain, too (eg Marais - Suitte d'un Gout Etranger, 2 disc £13.99). The SQ is quite extraordinary, jaw-dropping stuff - I assume Savall's recordings are reference material?
A bit late to the SACD party - recently bought a SACD-compatible CDP - and feeling a sense of 'where have you been all my life' re SACDs. Mind you, I'm sure that there are also some mediocre recordings on SACD...
6th.replicant:
A bit late to the SACD party - recently bought a SACD-compatible CDP - and feeling a sense of 'where have you been all my life' re SACDs. Mind you, I'm sure that there are also some mediocre recordings on SACD...
That would be the 1976-1982 Genesis SACD remix boxset. I have it, I own it, I bought it, I hate it. HMV will still try and flog this for £80 you know. Avoid. Get the Barry Diament Atco version of "Trick of the Tail" which is about as good as CD got IMO. Actually, Barry Diament's work is typically about as good as CD gets. He makes even duff master tapes sound the business. Nice guy too.
A bit late to the SACD party - recently bought a SACD-compatible CDP - and feeling a sense of 'where have you been all my life' re SACDs. Mind you, I'm sure that there are also some mediocre recordings on SACD...
That would be the 1976-1982 Genesis SACD remix boxset. I have it, I own it, I bought it, I hate it. HMV will still try and flog this for £80 you know. Avoid. Get the Barry Diament Atco version of "Trick of the Tail" which is about as good as CD got IMO. Actually, Barry Diament's work is typically about as good as CD gets. He makes even duff master tapes sound the business. Nice guy too.
matthewpiano
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2007
- 494
- 334
- 19,270
6th.replicant:the record spot:Just picked up some of the RCA Living Stereo releases on SACD, currently going cheap on Amazon. Now there are some examples of great recordings. some of these from the 50s and early 60s. Terrific stuff (classical in the main).
+1
Recently snapped up the RCA Living Stereo SACD of Fritz Reiner / Chicago Sympony Orchestra's Scheherazade. IMHO, beautiful playing and a stunning recording - the hairs they are a standing.
Fabulous CD. One of my very favourite recordings of all time and a regular staple of my listening sessions.
+1
Recently snapped up the RCA Living Stereo SACD of Fritz Reiner / Chicago Sympony Orchestra's Scheherazade. IMHO, beautiful playing and a stunning recording - the hairs they are a standing.
Fabulous CD. One of my very favourite recordings of all time and a regular staple of my listening sessions.
Look out for any of these recording label on the cover of the album, from low to high:
AAD -> ADD -> DDD -> DAD -> LPCD -> DSD-CD -> XRCD -> XRCD2 -> XRCD24 -> SACD
AAD -> ADD -> DDD -> DAD -> LPCD -> DSD-CD -> XRCD -> XRCD2 -> XRCD24 -> SACD
Hachi:
Look out for any of these recording label on the cover of the album, from low to high:
AAD -> ADD -> DDD -> DAD -> LPCD -> DSD-CD -> XRCD -> XRCD2 -> XRCD24 -> SACD
yes thats what i was looking for really ,a guide , at least i can check before i buy , ill save that list to my phone
Look out for any of these recording label on the cover of the album, from low to high:
AAD -> ADD -> DDD -> DAD -> LPCD -> DSD-CD -> XRCD -> XRCD2 -> XRCD24 -> SACD
yes thats what i was looking for really ,a guide , at least i can check before i buy , ill save that list to my phone
Yup...
I've loads that sound great (even the copy versions sound superb) but some CD's (original ones) sound awful/muted... Jethro Tull, Dio, some AC/DC and even some modern electronica CD's need to have the volume up more!
I've loads that sound great (even the copy versions sound superb) but some CD's (original ones) sound awful/muted... Jethro Tull, Dio, some AC/DC and even some modern electronica CD's need to have the volume up more!
6th.replicant
Well-known member
- Oct 26, 2007
- 294
- 0
- 18,890
FWIW, I avoid AADs - unless it's a rare, must-have - and anything that's been re-licensed and re-released on an obscure budget label.
Also lookout for remastered versions of 'oldies', those that were remastered/re-released from 1998 onwards seem to sound best (eg Stevie Wonder, Bowie & Roxy Music's). If a remastered classic has 20- or 24-bit remastering mentioned on the cover/sleeve - eg Louis Armstrong, Oscar Peterson & Ella Fitzgerald's on Verve - IME it's another sign that the SQ will be decent. EMI Classics and Deutsche Grammophon's remasters also sound pretty good IMHO.
Be careful of Amazon, it often tries to 'hide' remastered CDs when artists initially release the updated versions - the first page of a performer-search will show its CDs at very tempting prices (c. £3) as Amazon tries to shift the old stock, then you click on the next page and discover the recently remastered versions at the more regular price (c. £8). For example, this happened when Neil Young and Kraftwerk released their remasters.
Then again, not all remasters sound good - it depends on the engineer(s), the tech used and how long the sessions were. I assume that Ultravox's recently remastered back-catalogue was engineered by a hearing-impaired, one-armed chimpanzee, during a session that lasted five minutes?
Some contemporary releases have the 'Turn Me Up!' logo on the cover/sleeve, this is a campaign to discourage artists/recording engineers from producing albums that sound loud at relatively low volume settings, the consequence of which is compressed sound.
IIRC, there was a recent-ish (Dec '09?) thread on this forum where folks recommended their favourite recordings in terms of SQ; the range of artists and genres was very eclectic.
Also lookout for remastered versions of 'oldies', those that were remastered/re-released from 1998 onwards seem to sound best (eg Stevie Wonder, Bowie & Roxy Music's). If a remastered classic has 20- or 24-bit remastering mentioned on the cover/sleeve - eg Louis Armstrong, Oscar Peterson & Ella Fitzgerald's on Verve - IME it's another sign that the SQ will be decent. EMI Classics and Deutsche Grammophon's remasters also sound pretty good IMHO.
Be careful of Amazon, it often tries to 'hide' remastered CDs when artists initially release the updated versions - the first page of a performer-search will show its CDs at very tempting prices (c. £3) as Amazon tries to shift the old stock, then you click on the next page and discover the recently remastered versions at the more regular price (c. £8). For example, this happened when Neil Young and Kraftwerk released their remasters.
Then again, not all remasters sound good - it depends on the engineer(s), the tech used and how long the sessions were. I assume that Ultravox's recently remastered back-catalogue was engineered by a hearing-impaired, one-armed chimpanzee, during a session that lasted five minutes?
Some contemporary releases have the 'Turn Me Up!' logo on the cover/sleeve, this is a campaign to discourage artists/recording engineers from producing albums that sound loud at relatively low volume settings, the consequence of which is compressed sound.
IIRC, there was a recent-ish (Dec '09?) thread on this forum where folks recommended their favourite recordings in terms of SQ; the range of artists and genres was very eclectic.
im currently listening to the eagles greatest hits cd , its one of the best quality cds ive heard , lovely....
6th.replicant
Well-known member
- Oct 26, 2007
- 294
- 0
- 18,890
maxflinn:im currently listening to the eagles greatest hits cd , its one of the best quality cds ive heard , lovely....
Is it the remastered - released June 2006 - version?
Is it the remastered - released June 2006 - version?
yes 6th , its the remastered version , excellent quality , crystal clear on my rx6s , loads of detail
6th.replicant
Well-known member
- Oct 26, 2007
- 294
- 0
- 18,890
maxflinn:yes 6th , its the remastered version , excellent quality , crystal clear on my rx6s , loads of detail
6th.replicant
Well-known member
- Oct 26, 2007
- 294
- 0
- 18,890
cse:6th.replicant what sacd player do you have? Is your Arcam an sacd player?
Yes, it is.
Bought it last week - upgrade-itis strikes again.
FWIW, I also demo'd rival CDPs from Naim and Cyrus, but it was the CD37's SACD-compatability that swung it for me (also wary of Cyrus's current reputation for less than perfect reliability), plus that IMHO classical and jazz instruments sounded more 'real' via the Arcam.
Also, the CD37 has dropped to c.£990 (£1,300+ at some outlets). I assume a new model is imminent?
Yes, it is.
FWIW, I also demo'd rival CDPs from Naim and Cyrus, but it was the CD37's SACD-compatability that swung it for me (also wary of Cyrus's current reputation for less than perfect reliability), plus that IMHO classical and jazz instruments sounded more 'real' via the Arcam.
Also, the CD37 has dropped to c.£990 (£1,300+ at some outlets). I assume a new model is imminent?
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Would a HiFi setup sound better than a home cinema setup for music?
- Started by R2D2
- Replies: 54
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram